Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Commercial: Brand the band

Which is superficially correct. But (and you knew that was coming), is it enough?

That's to say, is it ambitious enough? I love the Foos - they blew Wembley away when I saw them earlier this summer. But but but but: when the history of rock is written, it's not clear that they'll be more than a footnote. Nice enough chaps, competent at what they do. But not game changers. World beaters. People who shook the axis of the world a little. After all, have they ever really escaped the shadow of one of Dave's earlier bands?

I know James says:

The Foo Fighters are not a ‘great band’. They are not really critically acclaimed and yet every one of their six albums has been up for a Grammy. So how does that work? They give people more reasons to like them than dislike them and they work hard at it.

But if we start saying that's all we aspire to do, with our brands as much as our bands, then we aren't setting our sights high enough. And it would be anathema to a challenger brand just to settle for this philosophy.

Remember: the point of being in this world is to change it, not bimble along and accept it.

PS: Any bands who can or can't be made into a brand manifesto? I might be persuaded to offer a reward for the most creative or unlikely examples. Make that 'definitely' if your example involves Dumpy's Rusty Nuts.

PPS: And when did it become acceptable to start demanding that bands/artists turn up on time? 'I had to wait, and it was cold, and waaaah, it's past my bed time.' It's rock and roll, FFS. Don't you pay for a little licensed bad behaviour? Or must every cultural exchange now be about what 'I', the invidious creep of an individual consumer, get out of it?

Sheesh. Grow up. Bend, and roll with the situation. Get out of your head. Live a little. You might enjoy it.